🔗 Share this article

It has been the mass murder of October 7, 2023, an event that deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor had been established on the presumption which held that Israel would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of numerous non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the October 7th events that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their commemoration of that date. How does one grieve and remember a horrific event against your people while simultaneously an atrocity done to a different population attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The difficulty surrounding remembrance stems from the fact that little unity prevails regarding the significance of these events. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the collapse of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established subsequent to the Six-Day War in 1967. Earlier, American Jewry maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions that had a range of views concerning the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation endured throughout the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical religious group and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in those years. Additionally, Zionist ideology the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities before the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

But after Israel overcame neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict during that period, taking control of areas including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on Israel evolved considerably. The military success, along with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, produced a developing perspective regarding Israel's vital role to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric concerning the remarkable nature of the victory and the freeing of areas provided the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, much of existing hesitation about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor the commentator declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who typically thought a Jewish state should only emerge via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most secular Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the idea about the nation as a democratic and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the occupation of local, Syrian and Egyptian lands post-1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were raised with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. Israel became a key component in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated most synagogues. Summer camps integrated with national melodies and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Trips to the nation grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, throughout these years post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that represented tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and criticizing that position positioned you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as one publication termed it in a piece in 2021.

However currently, under the weight of the devastation within Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer